Interesting thread but why has it taken so long to do what should have been
done first; ask the contest management?
Rather than debate this, I sent an email asking for confirmation that the
rule change would not >require taking 2 blocks of off time.
Al
AB2ZY
They are the ones who will bounce your log out if you guess (or debate) and
come up with the wrong conclusion.
John GW4SKA
----- Original Message -----
From: "Al Kozakiewicz" <akozak@hourglass.com>
To: <k0rc@citlink.net>
Cc: <rtty@contesting.com>
Sent: Saturday, July 06, 2013 5:34 PM
Subject: Re: [RTTY] contest change
30 - (6 + 0) = 24
Here's the pseudo SQL ;^)
SELECT OPTIME=(MAX(QSO_TIME) - MIN(QSO_TIME)) FROM QSOs WHERE CALL='K0RC'
{build temporary table of off time blocks; left as an exercise for the
student)
SET OFFTIME=(SELECT SUM(TOP 2 BLOCKLEN FROM OFFTIMES ORDER BY BLOCKLEN DESC)
IF OFFTIME <6 THEN
Rule is broken
ELSE
Rule is not broken
ENDIF
You're insisting on reading an interpretation into the rule (that everyone
must take a minimum of two breaks with one lasting at least 30 minutes) that
has no rational basis given the history and context.
Rather than debate this, I sent an email asking for confirmation that the
rule change would not require taking 2 blocks of off time.
Al
AB2ZY
From: Robert Chudek - K0RC [mailto:k0rc@citlink.net]
Sent: Saturday, July 06, 2013 12:17 PM
To: Al Kozakiewicz
Cc: rtty@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [RTTY] contest change
Here's my log:
720 QSOs, 1 per minute for 12 hours
0 QSOs, not operating for 6 hours
720 QSOs, 1 per minute for 12 hours
My "first QSO" is at 0000z. My "last QSO" is 30 hours later.
Please write a formula that will satisfy this rule:
*2.2 Operating Time will be calculated using the elapsed
time between the first QSO and the last QSO logged
minus the longest two breaks during this elapsed time
where such breaks are a minimum of 30 minutes each.*
As written, the proposed rule must find two breaks during the 30-hour
period. I only see one "longest break" in my log, which does not satisfy the
stated rule. IF they will accept a SINGLE 6-hour break, the rule should
state that as acceptable. As written, this new rule is worse than the
original text.
73 de Bob - KØRC in MN
________________________________
On 7/6/2013 10:41 AM, Al Kozakiewicz wrote:
Nowhere does it say that you must take two breaks. Only that the off time
will be calculated by summing the length of the longest two. If you take
one break of 6 hours, the rule is satisfied and there is no need to add in
time from an additional break.
Here's a reductio ad absurdum: Off times have a definition. On times do
not. By your interpretation of the rule, it could be satisfied by taking a
3 hour break; making one QSO; then taking another 3 hours break.
What possible rational purpose would this serve?
Al
AB2ZY
-----Original Message-----
From: RTTY [mailto:rtty-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Robert Chudek -
K0RC
Sent: Saturday, July 06, 2013 1:23 AM
To: rtty@contesting.com<mailto:rtty@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [RTTY] contest change
This is still wrong. In your example 6+0=6 you are counting hours. The
suggested new rule requires a count of two off times. There is only one off
time in 6+0=6.
73 de Bob - KØRC in MN
------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 7/5/2013 11:50 PM, Al Kozakiewicz wrote:
1+1=2
6+0=6
QED
Al
AB2ZY
-----Original Message-----
From: RTTY [mailto:rtty-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Bill
Turner
Sent: Saturday, July 06, 2013 12:01 AM
To: RTTY Reflector
Subject: Re: [RTTY] contest change
ORIGINAL MESSAGE: (may be snipped)
On Fri, 5 Jul 2013 20:42:43 -0400, Al wrote:
One of those longest 2 blocks could well be of zero length.
REPLY:
I thought we got rid of the New Math. One plus zero equals two?
73, Bill W6WRT
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com<mailto:RTTY@contesting.com>
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com<mailto:RTTY@contesting.com>
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com<mailto:RTTY@contesting.com>
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.3345 / Virus Database: 3204/6469 - Release Date: 07/06/13
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
|